Colt 1860 Vs Remington New Model

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The Remington New Model Army is a more technologically advanced firearm than the Colt 1860 Army.

  • The cylinder can be removed without disassembling the gun.
  • The solid frame on the Remington means you have more mechanical consistency inherent to the design.
  • The grips can be removed with a single screw. On the Colt you have to remove the grip frame. This makes it easier to "dunk clean" the Remington.
  • The rear sight is fixed on the Remington. On the Colt, it moves when you pull the trigger.

Once you pull the trigger, it does not really matter what the sight does.
 
I can't even picture an open top 500 S&W mag!!😖
Might look something like this only larger.

1667702169613.jpeg
 
During its 12-year life Merwin, Hulbert & Co. produced no fewer than 14 different revolvers. The Frontier Model was a large-frame single action—and later double-action—meant to compete with the Colt Single Action Army, 1875 Remington and Smith & Wesson Model 3 revolvers.

merwin-hulbert-revolver-4.jpg


It was made in four variations. The First Model was chambered in the proprietary .44 Merwin & Hulbert, similar to Smith & Wesson’s .44 American cartridge. It was an open-top, single-action revolver that was mostly seen with a nickel finish. One distinctive feature was the “scoop”-type cylinder flutes that did not extend all the way to the front of the cylinder.

The revolver’s design—considered one of the strongest of its time—also featured a novel case extraction system whereby the barrel and cylinder were twisted and pulled forward. Empty cases were extracted by the vacuum produced during the twisting motion, and loaded cartridges remained in the cylinder due to their mass and inertia.
 
Wow, I just commented in another forum about the M&H. The weak link in it was the latch system that was supposed to hold the barrel assy in place and the non-fixed arbor unlike the stationary arbor of the Colt platform. It was never offered in 45C ( for a reason) and they shoot loose because of this. A fellow on another forum has several and admits that they don't quite work as advertised. They later went to a top strap design. Nonetheless, they are a handsome looking revolver!!
Actually, the case rim is held back by a collar on the arbor and the bullet in the case is what holds the "live" rounds in place while spent cases fall away. Pretty neat. To unload the live rounds you have to go to half cock and left them fall out through the loading gate.


Mike
 
Last edited:
I have an original of both the Colt and the Remington as well as a ROA and what fits me the best as far as holding and pointing is my 1863 Rogers & Spencer. Weren't those Bannerman CW R&S preferred at the early BP shoots? Never shot that one so can't comment on firing one.
Bannerman sold them in Unissued condition in the 1900s, and they were very popular. The originals are apparently very accurate.

It's strange that they all just went straight into storage, sat in a Govt warehouse through the entire Indian Wars period when Colt 1860's were being re-arsenaled and no one in the Ordance Dept thought to break them out and issue them.
 
During its 12-year life Merwin, Hulbert & Co. produced no fewer than 14 different revolvers. The Frontier Model was a large-frame single action—and later double-action—meant to compete with the Colt Single Action Army, 1875 Remington and Smith & Wesson Model 3 revolvers.

merwin-hulbert-revolver-4.jpg


It was made in four variations. The First Model was chambered in the proprietary .44 Merwin & Hulbert, similar to Smith & Wesson’s .44 American cartridge. It was an open-top, single-action revolver that was mostly seen with a nickel finish. One distinctive feature was the “scoop”-type cylinder flutes that did not extend all the way to the front of the cylinder.

The revolver’s design—considered one of the strongest of its time—also featured a novel case extraction system whereby the barrel and cylinder were twisted and pulled forward. Empty cases were extracted by the vacuum produced during the twisting motion, and loaded cartridges remained in the cylinder due to their mass and inertia.
I love these
 
What makes the Remington more user friendly? The grip is poorly designed compared to the Colt, the hammer harder to reach compared to the Colt (ergonomics are important), the Remington's balance and overall feel aren't nearly as good as the Colt's, and the idea that its easily removable cylinder is a wonderful asset really doesn't count for much. The Colt's arbor is much beefier and has grooves that hold lube allowing the Colt to stay in action long after the Remington's wimpy little arbor will. I have both and would choose the Colt over the Remington any day. And, as icing on the cake, the Colt has a Victorian elegance about it that the Remington simply does not. All of the above is my humble but accurate opinion.
At the end of the day, Remington made a lower cost revolver to sell to the arms-hungry US Ordnance Dept and the Colt plant burning down was just an opening to sell a bunch of them in .36 and .44. They worked well enough for service use and I think they were 10 bucks a piece cheaper.

It's not the first or last time the Govt bought weapons designs that were "good enough for Govt work" during wartime

It's not that Remington made a bad or ineffective revolver, they just weren't Colts.

The Colt was more widely used and copied worldwide which speaks volumes, the Russians paid Colt to make copies of the Navy. No one was paying to make Remington copies. The Imperial Russians loved the Colt Navy and the license made copies were used through WWI

People need to realize the modern repros are just that, repros. They aren't 100% reproductions of a Colt. The original Colts were top notch, reliable , hand fitted revolvers that were the best available in the world at that time.

Sam Colt is a household name, how many people know who Fordyce Beals is?
 
Last edited:
Wow, I just commented in another forum about the M&H. The weak link in it was the latch system that was supposed to hold the barrel assy in place and the non-fixed arbor unlike the stationary arbor of the Colt platform. It was never offered in 45C ( for a reason) and they shoot loose because of this. A fellow on another forum has several and admits that they don't quite work as advertised. They later went to a top strap design. Nonetheless, they are a handsome looking revolver!!
Actually, the case rim is held back by a collar on the arbor and the bullet in the case is what holds the "live" rounds in place while spent cases fall away. Pretty neat. To unload the live rounds you have to go to half cock and left them fall out through the loading gate.


Mike
The text was quoted from the National Firearms Museum website and as you noted there are a couple of errors. Iv had several as well, always liked them and they ran quite well for me. Interesting guns for sure. The company had some really bad luck but if the Russians had paid up on their contracts might be around today.
 
The text was quoted from the National Firearms Museum website and as you noted there are a couple of errors. Iv had several as well, always liked them and they ran quite well for me. Interesting guns for sure. The company had some really bad luck but if the Russians had paid up on their contracts might be around today.
The Russians loved American guns but had a bad habit of stiffing the manufacturers, like when Remington made contract Mosin M91s and got stuck holding half of them
 
I've settled on these two contenders as my first big bore percussion pistol. I'm probably opening up a hornets nest, but which one would you recommend? Thanks
I have had colts for years, they are the most beautiful cap and ball revolvers ever produced. However, if I want a reliable pull and shoot for an emergency type of handgun, I will go with the Remington revolver. If I want a handgun with nockdown power as a back up for a hunt, I will use my 3rd model Dragoon Colt. If those who have read my comments have not surmised as of yet, I own no modern fire arms. All my arms are in the century I am most at home with. And they are most effective and reliable for my needs as they were intended.
 
Comparing my new to me 1860 and 1858 Piettas, I think there are many ways the Colt (to my surprise) is designed better. The cylinder lock for one is a much better design being centered in the frame. The 1858 is offset to one side and on mine is not lined up optimally to the bore when locked. Also I agree with a previous post about the hammer being awkward to cock on the Remington design. The trigger and lock work are very similar on both as Pietta probably just tried to make them more the same for ease of production. The Colt just ergonomically feels better. Be neat to have two originals in front of me to inspect. Maybe someday. The overly touted strength advantage of the Remington is way overblown in my opinion. I honestly feel like either would take traditional 45 colt loads with conversion cylinders. I am really glad to have both and enjoy shooting both!
 
Your humble but accurate opinion? That is pretty funny. Therefore everyone is entitled to YOUR opinion then?
Hi Dirt! Yup, everyone is entitled to my opinion if they want it. What precisely do you disagree with? I've been shooting these revolvers for over sixty years and have never heard anyone say that they preferred the ergonomics of the Remington over the Colt's. The trigger/grip/hammer relationship is awful on the Remington. The balance and feel of the Colt are better than the Remington's and the Colt's trigger guard won't beat up your middle finger like a Remington does. Anyway, you shoot whatever you like and have a great time doing it.
 
Hi Dirt! Yup, everyone is entitled to my opinion if they want it. What precisely do you disagree with? I've been shooting these revolvers for over sixty years and have never heard anyone say that they preferred the ergonomics of the Remington over the Colt's. The trigger/grip/hammer relationship is awful on the Remington. The balance and feel of the Colt are better than the Remington's and the Colt's trigger guard won't beat up your middle finger like a Remington does. Anyway, you shoot whatever you like and have a great time doing it.
Everyone will chose what they like. That's what makes this country great. fire away!
 
I've settled on these two contenders as my first big bore percussion pistol. I'm probably opening up a hornets nest, but which one would you recommend? Thanks
Ah, the never ending question. I’ve owned several of each, both Piettas and Ubertis. It seems like I find myself going back to Remingtons after spending a hell of a lot more time cleaning Colts than shooting them. Conversely, though I love the ease of the Remington cleaning process, I soon miss the the slightly better accuracy (at least for me) of the Colt, and just the rather subjective way it seems to “hang” in the hand. In fact, I am going to sell my Remington and will be buying a Colt before the end of the year ! MTC.
 
Hi Dirt! Yup, everyone is entitled to my opinion if they want it. What precisely do you disagree with? I've been shooting these revolvers for over sixty years and have never heard anyone say that they preferred the ergonomics of the Remington over the Colt's. The trigger/grip/hammer relationship is awful on the Remington. The balance and feel of the Colt are better than the Remington's and the Colt's trigger guard won't beat up your middle finger like a Remington does. Anyway, you shoot whatever you like and have a great time doing it.
I felt the same way about the Remington until I purchased a Peitta extended frame Remington from DGW. Now the gun fits my hand quite nicely. The Colts do point much better though, like pointing you finger.
 
Hi Dirt! Yup, everyone is entitled to my opinion if they want it. What precisely do you disagree with? I've been shooting these revolvers for over sixty years and have never heard anyone say that they preferred the ergonomics of the Remington over the Colt's. The trigger/grip/hammer relationship is awful on the Remington. The balance and feel of the Colt are better than the Remington's and the Colt's trigger guard won't beat up your middle finger like a Remington does. Anyway, you shoot whatever you like and have a great time doing it.
I agree, it extends into the cartridge era and a lot further than just Colt vs Remington. I've got a bunch of the S&W replicas and I love them but there is nothing I have ever put in my hands that has the ergonomics or fast handling of a Colt single action, from the 1851 forward. The Remington percussion and cartridge guns are very cool but they simply do not handle like a Colt.
 
A bit off topic but what is the favorite way to load a colt 1860 at the range when shooting multiple cylinders ?
The best I can figure out is on the gun with a stand designed for this using the gun’s rammer.

Since cylinder removal / replacement is so easy on a Remington, loading the cylinder off gun on a stand with the heavier duty rammer is my preferred method. Also capping seems easier for me than when the cylinder is on the gun.
Also if the cylinder is loaded and in the Remington and a cold line is called the guy who oversees the range likes that the loaded cylinder is removed when he is checking. This is more cumbersome to me with a colt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top